Personal Branding. What's the issue?

The business card is dead. Who cares about a 3x2 inch piece of card stock that gets lost in the shuffle and eventually thrown into the garbage? I may be thinking a little drastically here, but the idea holds true. My new media professor has told this anecdote a million times and I think its genius. Here it is: When David Meerman Scott takes the stage at speaking engagements he introduces himself by handing out his "business card." What is his business card? Google. Its a lot more engaging when its told in person.


If you'e been following this blog the slightest bit, you hopefully have gleamed two things. 1) I have a slight obsession with all things Starbucks. 2) Google amazes me. In this crazy world of SEO (search engine marketing, for those of you not in the COM world), digital marketing, and new media, developing a relevant online presence is mandatory whether its for a corporate or personal brand. As a matter of fact, Todd Defren, a principal at SHIFT Communications and a social media thought leader, recently blogged about personal brand conflicting with corporate brand.

As a future public relations professional I am working hard to establish some sort of online presence. I am not afraid to Google myself. To be honest, its one of my favorite activities. I swear I am not conceited. In fact, I openly ask my friends to Google me in order to see what comes up. Because for some reason in my head, the search results are not the same that I see on my own mac. (I have yet to figure out my own brain.) I blog, Twitter, Facebook, connect on LinkedIn, interact on other blogs, and created a Google profile all in the name of optimum SEO.

Here is where the difference lies between generations. My friends and I realize that drunken Facebook photos are not to be seen by potential employers, but when you're trying to establish an online presence where do you draw the line? Facebook has so-called "privacy" settings and laws that help prevent non-friends from seeing photos of you and yet when I Google myself some of these photos show up. This is NO BUENO. I can't tell you how many times I hear from my parents not to put anything on Facebook that could potentially harm my career...thank you Mom and Dad, I get it. I am a self-proclaimed social media master, thank you.


What I find so interesting is my parents do not understand anything about developing an online presence. I want them to read my blog. In fact my family is one of the reasons I started this blog. I wanted to share thoughts about the public relations and communications industry and to help them understand my future career. One night, I asked my dad to google me. Harmless, right? He refused. "I don't want anything to do with that bullsh*t." Direct quote.....ummmm, excuse me? Apparently he has not been reading my blog. THANKS FOR THE LOVING SUPPORT FATHER. He then handed the phone to my mother who was slightly more understanding. But this is when I had to explain what the act of googling is. My parents apparently have no idea what they're paying Boston University to teach me.

The question I want to throw out there is this: Are older, more experienced communications professionals having the same troubles as my parents? In class we are taught that entering the job market as young, fresh students will give us an advantage because we "get" this new social media. But as far as I was concerned, Google was rather self-explanatory. I am interested to see what sort of challenges lay ahead upon entering the full-time work force.

GleeGate: A Step to Far?

By now I'm sure that most people have heard about the recent controversy surrounding the Glee GQ photos. In case you have been living under a giant rock or perhaps been vacationing in North Korea, here's a little rundown for you:

• About a week ago GQ made public racy photos taken by Terry Richardson
• The photos featured Glee castmates Lea Michele, Cory Monteith, Dianna Agron posing in "hyper-sexualized" versions of their characters
• The Parents Television Council denounced the spread saying it "borders on pedophilia" and is a "near-pornographic display"
• The fever reached a boiling point when Katie Couric, The View, and The Talk all uttered the same sentiment, expressing disappointment in the choices the actors made in posing

While there are clearly several things wrong with this photo shoot and the ideas behind it, the fuss that has been created over these photos has become quite hysterical. Now I realize that as a young adult,  I might feel a little differently about these photos if I were a parent. But the point is not to argue about whether the actors made a good choice in agreeing to take the photos. What bothers me most about this scandal is the fact that these photos would not have been a huge deal if The Parents Television Council had not released statements. The photos might have garnered a small bit of attention because they are pretty steamy, but since words such a "pedophilia" and "near-pornographic" were used, the media jumped on board, broadcasting the photos across the Internet, television, and other print. Because who isn't intrigued by young, hot Hollywood stars and scandal? 


In my opinion, The Parents Television Council did Glee and GQ a favor by increasing attention that would otherwise not have been paid to the magazine. While Glee is an immensely popular show and guaranteed press no matter the issue, more attention was brought to these questionable photos than necessary because of those statements. The photos would not have been posted anywhere other than print and online GQ, but now the chances that children are going to see them are upped considerably. 


What would more than likely have been a small issue was blown out of proportion because the media got ahold of the story. Dianna Agron responded in a recent blog post, "If you are hurt or these photos make you uncomfortable, it was never our intention. And if your eight-year-old has a copy of our GQ cover in hand, again I am sorry. But I would have to ask, how on earth did it get there?" Well now because the story has appeared on several news stations, talk shows, and every corner of the Internet, it nearly impossible that children have not seen the photos.

The case I am making is The Parents Television Council should have left the photos alone. GQ's target demographic is older men for whom seeing scantily clad women is nothing new. At the end of the day, is you look closely at the content of Glee, the plot lines are certainly not G-rated and constantly push the envelope. I am not gonna lie, I have often thought about parent's reactions to some of the show's dialogue. But when one examines the audience of the show, most of the avid watchers are college age students and adults. Most certainly young teens are watching the show too, but seeing a few racy photos  is not going to epically harm a growing mind. If you take a look at past magazine covers, it is nothing new for young starlets to appear on covers such as Rolling Stone or Vanity Fair, hardly dressed. Take a look at Britney Spears when she was barely 18 and appeared dressed in underwear on the cover of Rolling Stone. Most recently, at the time 16 year old Miley Cyrus wrapped in a blanket in Vanity Fair. There comes a point in every career where boundaries are pushed, people will not always be child stars. Miley Cyrus will not always be Hannah Montana. Just take a look at Lindsay Lohan, former Disney Star or Vanessa Hudgens and the requisite nude photo scandal. People must come to the realization that Hollywood stars are actually adults and go beyond the roles they play on television. 


What do you think? Are these photos pushing the boundaries or have they gone a step too far?

"Yes, I Googled"

Google. This little idea born in Larry Page and Sergey Brin's Stanford dorm room (sound like Facebook much?) has become much more than just a simple search engine. In my New Media class, my professor often refers to Google as a person itself. Some PR and marketing professionals now spend their days trying to figure out how to get their clients to the top of search engine rankings. What exactly composes the Google Algorithm? I don't think us normal folks will ever find out.

What really got me thinking about Google, is this story: the other day I had to explain to my lovely mother what exactly "Googling" someone meant. She was trying to find out information about a person, after I did the requisite Facebook stalk, I suggested performing a Google search. Mom's response? "WHAT IS THAT?" I was flabbergasted. Did my mother really not know that you could basically find out a person's life story simply by typing their name into a search bar? This situation needed further exploring.

I knew that there are differences between what Gen Y and Gen X do with the Internet. But I hadn't really thought about the differences between how people use Google. Everyday I learn that there are differences in this ever changing world of Web 2.0 that I will come to understand in the work place.

What did we do before Google came about? I personally have a hard time remembering when the Internet was not such an integral part of my everyday existence. I can't pinpoint a time when I first started using Google or when the word Google became a verb. I'm willing to bet that this holds true for most people that are part of Generation Y. You don't know what the capital of Zimbabwe is? Google it. (The answer is Harare, btw.) Just writing this blog post, I've googled about 5 times so far. Google is a part of our everyday lives, so much so that without it, I think the world would be a lot dumber. Google provides the answer to every question we could ever come up with. What or who would we turn to with all of our random questions? Its a portal to the vast unknown world...this is what makes Google exciting.